Final notice of Witt's honorable discharge came three weeks ago, said her pro bono lawyer, Jim Lobsenz. But the fate of "don't ask, don't tell" is hanging in the balance.

Witt's case, and a similar one on appeal on the East Coast, are the first to wend their way through the courts since the high court issued its decision in Lawrence v. Texas.

That decision established a new "fundamental right" to engage in adult consensual sex, Lobsenz argued Monday before a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

But Justice Department attorney Jonathan Cohn said the Supreme Court didn't go that far. "The court very clearly stops short of ... recognizing a fundamental right."

Cohn argued that the government only has to show it has a rational reason for implementing "don't ask, don't tell."

Witt attended Monday's arguments wearing her uniform. She declined to speak with reporters.

In her written argument, Witt slammed the "irrational" contention that gays in the military are a threat to unit morale and discipline -- and said the government's own research can't support such a notion.

Cohn urged the appeals panel not to second-guess Congress, which held extensive hearings and heard from about 90 witnesses on the issue of gays in the military before putting "don't ask, don't tell" into law.

The appeals panel faces a challenge in discerning the intent of the high court in the vaguely worded Texas decision. Presiding Circuit Judge Susan Graber on Monday used such terms as "divining" the meaning of the opinion and reading the "tea leaves."